“Many people advised me to write it under a pseudonym, for sailing too close to the wind is a dangerous business these days…It will perhaps mark my ‘swan song,’ academically speaking at least.” Thus begins Travels in Cultural Nihilism, a volume of twelve essays by the Oxford ethnographer Stephen Pax Leonard and one of the most eloquent and refreshing books I’ve had the recent pleasure to read. Perhaps overshadowed by the publication of Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe, which touches the same overarching theme – the collapse of the West, Leonard’s book is significantly wider in scale, richer in detail, deeper in analysis, and more impassioned in its deliberations. While several essays concern the morbidity of post-modern Swedish culture (where the author has spent some time living as a fascinated and concerned observer), Leonard also offers robust and at times poignant meditations on Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, the nature of the European Union project, same-sex marriage, feminism, Islam, the nature of pathological liberalism, and the insidious spread of Cultural Marxism. The author interacts effortlessly with the thought of Heidegger, Evola, Spengler, Scruton, Nietzsche, and Schmitt, while taking aim at Foucault, Gramsci, and a large cast of contemporary malevolent political actors. Leonard, a Fellow at Exeter College, Oxford, is a trained linguist. He has previously published books on Scandinavia and the Arctic regions, including afascinating Guardian articleon his time among the Arctic Inugguit. Possessed of these credentials, Leonard may be considered to have a lot to lose by breaking silence on the matters he discusses in Travels in Cultural Nihilism. As he himself anticipates, the book could represent his ‘swan song.’ He notes that he has already “lost (and made) friends over the views held here.” It is rare and difficult for someone in the belly of the beast to speak out like this, a fact which renders Travels in Cultural Nihilism a work of significant courage as well as one of admirable erudition.

Even in the introduction to his book, Leonard enters the world of forbidden thought not with tentative musings, but with gusto and strength of conviction. Words aren’t minced. Excuses aren’t provided. Apologies are nowhere to be seen. Multiculturalism, declares Leonard, “has been a disaster everywhere.” In Sweden, it has been “forced” on a “kind people that are liberal-managed with the aid of a mendacious, Government-subsidised media.” Its failures there “have been covered up time and again.” The wider implications for the rest of West represent nothing less than “cultural pathology and the regression of humanity.” This cultural pathology is demonstrated best in Germany, where the same “thick crowds of tearful Germans embracing ‘refugees’ on railway platforms were months later dealing with mass rapes, suicide bombers, machete wielding immigrants, lorries being driven into Christmas markets, and an axe-wielding asylum seeker whose actions were inspired by the brutal atrocities in southern France (Nice) a week earlier.” Of particular interest to Leonard, in all of his essays, is the nature of government involvement in enforcing the multicultural narrative, an involvement laid bare in its utter cynicism by the actions of French police in destroying CCTV footage of the Bastille Day massacre in Nice. Aside from government actions, Leonard sets his mind upon the mentality of the masses, and ponders Spengler’s discovery that nihilism is a feature of collapsing societies. The author remarks that European society/culture is now essentially divided between “those who want to preserve historical modalities of belonging, and those who wish to extirpate them; those who want continuity and identity, and those who aspire to Rousseauesque tabula rasa.”

Leonard is exceptional at highlighting the hypocrisy and sheer malevolence of cultural Marxists. The same people who claim to want to “integrate” immigrants into Western society are often the first to claim there is no indigenous culture to integrate into. Leonard points out that the aim of the cultural Marxist is not to integrate immigrants with the native population, but to recruit and incite the former against the latter: “one cannot begin to integrate people from very alien cultures into one’s Western society if one educates them by telling them that their European hosts (be it Swedes, Britons, or Germans) are collaborators, racists, colonialists and fascists.” While mass demographic change is being hailed as “progress,” Leonard points out that ‘progress’ is nothing more than an “oratorically persuasive way of saying ‘change.’” The duplicity of cultural Marxist language plays a key role in the advance of increasingly narrow and rigid ways of thinking throughout the West, and in his first essay, ‘Psychological Angst,’ Leonard dissects the mechanics and operation of ‘groupthink’ as it pertains to the multicultural project.

In ‘Psychological Angst’ Leonard attempts to understand why Western populations remain silent as their access to free speech becomes increasingly restricted. He attributes this silence, in part, to the growth of ‘groupthink,’ a “psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.” In the context of groupthink, which is increasingly underpinned by hate speech legislation, “the power of peer pressure is such that any dissent is socially unacceptable, and would lead to alienation.” Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an out-group. This leads to a series of broad assumptions about in-group members and out-group members. Using the example of academia, Leonard points out that there is a “false consensus that [other academics] subscribe to a full programme of post-modern liberal views on everything from multiculturalism, the EU, gay marriage, modern art, climate change and Shostakovich.” Failure to adhere to groupthink on any of these matters results in the offender being categorised with an almost limitless number of negative stereotypes, ranging from the assumption they must be of irrational and therefore somehow not really an academic after all, to accusations of fascism, racism, homophobia and Nazism. The intellectual and ideological narrowing of academic life is illustrated by the growing opinion that “everything that does not look or sound like democratic, globalist liberalism is fascist” while “it is considered normal for all Faculty members in a Humanities department to be liberal, and left of that.”

Since dissent is viewed as inherently offensive, we have witnessed the disappearance of debate from Western political life. Leonard points out that “the shocking thing about gay marriage is simply that legislation was introduced across the West in the almost complete absence of debate.” One could of course say the same about legislation concerning mass immigration, so-called ‘hate speech,’ and foreign aid. Through media and educational indoctrination, these subjects have been intensely imbued with what Leonard terms “coercive psychological barricades.” It therefore takes a tremendous break from established norms even to form oppositional ideas, let alone undertake oppositional action. Meanwhile cultural Marxists can operate with relative impunity, happy in the knowledge they will encounter little resistance: “The younger generation has unthinkingly incorporated closed thinking into their new cultural grammar as this is now implicit in the education curriculum…Geography students are asked why gay people move from the countryside to the cities. In mathematics, they are taught through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population. In science, they are told about emperor penguins and sea horses where the males take the role in rearing its young.”

In discussions of ‘diversity,’ pathological groupthink reaches its zenith. In the popular, political, and cultural landscape, “diversity has assumed the mantle of some kind of irrefutable truth, a celebration of tolerance.” Leonard counters that it in fact means “cultural abandonment and ethnic dilution,” with much of the political elite complicit in a project designed to “destroy the notion that a nation represents one culture.” The diversity discourse is inherently intolerant, and seeks “to place every ethnicity and identity into the cauldron of global consumerism.” Globalisation is “a process which sets out to rule and dictate to a globalised, consumerism mass of people stripped of national identity, but endowed with secularism and a facade, of fake, humanistic, values.” In practical, localised terms, “diversity is played out as a sort of competition to prove who is most opposed to racism, sexism etc.” Diversity is “about bestowing a preferential value on minorities who are assumed to somehow be victims,” the end goal being “to make our nations as ‘multi-ethnic’ (i.e. non-white) as quickly as possible.” In Sweden, the programmatic goal of ethnic dilution has led to the rise of “a militant anti-racist cult.”

In his second essay, “Politicheskaya Pravil’nost,” Leonard moves into an exceptional exploration of political correctness. Carrying echoes of Jonathan Bowden, the chapter explores a grammar of self-intolerance which acts as a “mental and moral trap” and “operates as a form of emotional coercion.” Political correctness relies on a culture of over-labelling where “suddenly every statement or opinion has to be qualified adjectivally. Everything is -ist; nothing can escape description.” Speaking of his interactions with students, Leonard notes “the sense of herd morality is clearly apparent. Many are wholly unwilling to challenge or deconstruct the panoply of contemporary social truths regarding diversity, free speech, feminism, equality, tolerance, etc. For them, these have become the supreme moral principles.” Our education systems and wider society have been transformed by cultural Marxists, who abandoned the working class in order to find new ‘victims,’ to such an extent that “culture can only be discussed in terms of inequalities.” Leonard forthrightly condemns Women’s Studies and Gender Studies as “phony departments,” and is scathing of the “gender nihilism” they espouse. Political correctness, which indulges these departments and their discourses, thrives on a culture of hyper-sensitivity and reinforces itself with “masochistic syntax.” The most important aspect of this is a nurturing of “disrespect for the achievements of one’s own culture.” Post-modern morality in the West thus revolves around the extent to which Whites loathe their own culture and encourages its decline, and promote the achievements and immigration of foreign populations. Someone busily engaged in both is likely to be deemed a moral paragon. Much of Politicheskaya Pravil’nost is taken up with an exploration of how this masochistic culture operates in Sweden, and how it is taken advantage of by Islamists throughout Europe. For anyone interested in the nature of what has been termed ‘pathological altruism,’ Leonard’s essay is essential reading, particularly in its deliberations on Sweden’s historical focus on forming and maintaining a high consensus society.

In “Parrhesia,” the author offers a cutting critique of the theory and practice of so-called ‘hate speech’ legislation. Leonard argues the concept of hate speech has been ingested and regurgitated by authoritarian liberalism and has become synonymous with mere “insult.” Almost every example of national hate speech legislation contains arbitrary and subjective legal boundaries that allow for the imprisonment of anyone disagreeing with (and therefore insulting) liberal norms. Leonard argues that the fact hate speech legislation is so subjective “probably means the legislation should not exist in the first place.” An excellent example is the wording of Sweden’s hate speech laws, in which misaktning (‘disrespect’) is made criminal. A curious anomaly, of course, is the fact that Muslims appear immune to prosecution no matter how incendiary the sermons of some imams. Leonard offers examples of legal hypocrisy in this regard which are nothing less than infuriating. No less infuriating is the psychological impact of hate speech legislation, which not only has a gagging effect on free speech, but also leads to a culture of mutual denunciation among Whites. Leonard recounts the following story:

In the UK, Paul Weston, Chairman of Liberty GB was arrested in 2014 on suspicion of religious harassment for reading a passage from Winston Churchill’s book The River War (1899) about Islam…The interesting point here is Weston was arrested because he was standing in front of the Winchester Crown Court reading out a passage and a passerby heard the word Islam, and called the police…A passerby assumed that a white person holding a tannoy in public talking about Islam must amount to hate-speech.

Once a group establishes itself with liberal authoritarianism as a victimised minority, it can exert power over other groups at risk of being accused of hate speech. Leonard points to the activism of homosexuals against Churches, and cites instances in Sweden where homosexual groups have routinely monitored sermons. Otherwise weak in their own right, these bona fide ‘victims’ are beneficiaries of lavish funding from globalist entities like the European Union. Leonard points out “the EU is funding homosexual activists groups that have controversial and radical social agendas, some of which have links with paedophiles. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association Europe (ILGA), an organisation that has a history of promoting paedophilia, received more than two-thirds of its funding directly from taxpayers through the European Commission.” ILGA is of course ring-fenced from criticism because opposition would be deemed inherently ‘homophobic’ and therefore a criminal act. In England, notes Leonard, a plan was developed by the Minister for Women and Equalities which would “force teachers to report children who disapprove of homosexuality to police and social services under the guise of ‘fighting extremism.’”

In the short essay “Liberalist Fancies; Disconnectedness,” Leonard meditates with virtuosity on the concept of White guilt, cultural relativism, and the “consumerist frenzy of disconnectedness” which has come to consume much of Western post-modernity. Leonard’s observations on liberalism in this essay are magnificent. Crucially, liberalism ‘purports to be as much a moral doctrine as a political doctrine.” It is a “negative anthropology which holds that man’s social constructs are malevolent and biased.” Liberal ideology is “centred on an ill-defined, putative guilt for Western cultural domination,” while “the liberal psyche much prefers guilt to responsibility.” Leonard rejects guilt, asserting “we are not all equal and it is not morally wrong to say so: there is hierarchy in every group of individuals, and in a hierarchical society everybody has their place…Egalitarianism means in contemporary Western society at least, that everybody has to stoop down to the lowest common denominator.”

In “The Swedish Topos,” one of the best and longest essays in the volume, Leonard offers an excellent examination of Sweden’s decline into multicultural madness, with a focus on the years 2014-17. Commenting on the 2014 general election, during which the Sweden Democrats (SD) were subjected to legally questionable opposition (the removal or vandalism of election posters, the refusal of postal services to distribute party literature, physical attacks on party members, the systematic hacking of the party website, and the arson of the party election hut to name a few) Leonard argues that it is “legitimate to ask whether Swedish elections are in fact free and democratic.” He is scathing of Swedish reactions to the migrant crisis, noting that many Swedish notables were found “crying in public, they looked as pathetic as the Germans who applauded the ‘refugees’ who arrived in streams only to discover subsequently some of them were illegal immigrants and gangs of radical mobs looking to rape and pillage.” The result of this pathological response to the trigger propaganda of the mass media has been that migrants from Syria and Iraq now make up half the population of some Swedish towns. As havoc unfolds, “the weak, tolerant Swede not only welcomes mass Muslim immigration, he blames himself when it goes wrong.” As well as providing a long (and necessarily depressing) account of how multiculturalism has collapsed Swedish culture, Leonard remarks that “it is this Nietzschean ‘imperative of herd timidity’ that has smashed the European consciousness, and left us like sitting ducks for a ‘strong’ Islamic culture based on honour, conformity, and total submission. This will supersede our guilt-based culture…We must learn again to rise above this; we must regain our sense of honour, the ethos of social honour.”

While Leonard is excellent at fleshing out the history and mechanics of pathological altruism among the Swedes, he admirably makes clear that this is a revolution (“bringing about the biggest ever demographic and cultural change the country has ever known”) imposed from above. Much of what has unfolded in the last several decades has suggested “there is some kind of ‘invisible hand’ at work here.” The uniformity of media production in Sweden strongly suggests that “editors are being ‘controlled to some degree; journalists are being told they cannot report on certain issues.” Swedish spending on Afghan child migrants alone ($2.5 billion), which in 2016 surpassed its entire defence budget “surely implies that there is a much broader agenda here.” What exactly that agenda is may be surmised from the results of multiculturalism – Sweden is now a less White, less intelligent (48% of migrant children can’t pass Swedish maths exams), less safe (80% of rapes are committed by North Africans and migrants from the Middle East), and less free country than at any time in its history. As Leonard says, “as far as Sweden is concerned, it is difficult to see if there is any grand conspiracy at work, but one might not want to rule it out.”

In “Totalitarian Air Waves,” Leonard further explores the claustrophobic atmosphere of ‘liberal authoritarian’ Sweden. Opening with reference to Gramsci’s goal that the State should fall into the hands of the Left once it captured the commanding organs of culture and media, the author explores a typical day’s fare from Swedish radio where “there is an obsession with gay rights and feminism…topics which should have marginal value at best at a time of economic crisis, war and burgeoning extremist movements.” The topics chosen are “peripheral, trivial, often perverse (female cartoonists discussing their orgasms), and the conversations are one-sided and lack substance.” Leonard notes that while listeners are spoon-fed a diet of rhetoric on radical feminism and mass immigration, “it is noticeable that they can only introduce the information in a way that intellectualises it. The information provided on national radio programmes is packaged in often very conceptual ways, sometimes quite abstract, but seldom factual…It is perhaps easier to undermine multiculturalism with facts than concepts.” Swedish radio “also has a tendency to select radio plays that invite a sense of self-loathing, and nurturing of some kind of collective guilt.” There is a steady diet of documentaries and reflections on “Nazi concentration camps,” and “radio dramas feature invariably an immigrant who is always cast as the ‘victim,’ bullied at school, denied opportunities etc.” The latter half of this excellent essay concerns the extraordinarily oppressive government surveillance culture in Sweden (“the Swedish state keeps a record of everything said in telephone conversations, surfed on the web or written on the Internet”), where home schooling has been effectively banned, debates have recently been held on whether private citizens should even be able to own satellite dishes, and where one “cannot even order a bathtub without an ID number.”

Of the remaining, shorter, essays, my favorite is “No Jihad Here,” an account of the great pains to which Western media and political elites have gone to deny the fact jihad is being waged against us by Muslim populations. In almost every instance we are told that massacres perpetrated by Muslims are merely “the work of a mentally unbalanced man whose motivations were vague and ‘hardly coherent.’” Euphemisms are ubiquitous. In one of the most egregious examples cited by Leonard, an Eritrean migrant killed a 55 year old Swedish woman and her 28 year old son in an IKEA store. The woman was partially beheaded in what the Swedish media generically termed a “knife attack” – “which has become something of a ritualised term.” After the murder “IKEA closed the shop and put up a notice saying the store was closed because of a ‘technical error.’”

Travels in Cultural Nihilism is a volume that is engaging in style and incendiary in content. There are few works on the market that match the range of topics under discussion with the level of intellectual and philosophical insight that Leonard offers here. That being said, this is also a volume that, in the starkness of its selected anecdotes, can and should reach the average reader. The subjects under discussion are of crucial importance for all Europeans and European-descended peoples. Perhaps the best feature of the volume is that, despite many of its grim and necessary revelations, it retains a thread of optimism throughout. This is, ultimately, not a ‘black pill’ in the manner of Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe. Leonard suggests that we can claw our way out of the abyss, and back into the light. Doing so will require courage and sacrifice – both of which Leonard has demonstrated by publishing this important collection.

“While Leonard is excellent at fleshing out the history and mechanics of pathological altruism among the Swedes, he admirably makes clear that this is a revolution (“bringing about the biggest ever demographic and cultural change the country has ever known”) imposed from above. Much of what has unfolded in the last several decades has suggested “there is some kind of ‘invisible hand’ at work here.” The uniformity of media production in Sweden strongly suggests that “editors are being ‘controlled to some degree; journalists are being told they cannot report on certain issues.”

So “revolution from above” + “uniformity of media” + “invisible hand” means what ? Well, who controls the media in Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia ?
Right, the JEWISH Bonnier family*)! JEWISH SCHEMING is the “invisible hand” that imposes the “revolution from above” in Sweden and in the rest of the western world, but a man with the Jewish name Leonard refuses to mention that, nor can Douglas Murray, who shies away from the Jewish question, explain the “strange death” of Europe without mentioning it.
Cultural Marxism, mass non-white immigration, hate speech laws etc. etc. are all weapons in the hands of the Jews who want to destroy the West, which they see as the major obstacle to their world domination. You cannot fight an enemy if you are not allowed to identify him !

*) For information on the Jewish Bonnier family (original name : Hirschel), see :https://mosaisk.com/Torben…/Bonnier-Hjorne-Klein-Jewish-Media-Scandinavia.php

@Franklin Ryckaert. That the link doesn’t work is due to censorship. Naming the Jew in other circumstances than flattering would be a hate speech that Swedes fear more than disrespect (missaktning) for Muslim, Islamist or sexual “enrichers”. I’ve yet not heard of any case of prosecution – or at least of social ostracism – for smearing Swedes, Russians, Germans or other whiteys.

Yes, Franklin, you are correct in asking “who controls the media…”. The tribe prefers to own, but will gladly accept a minority position for control. All one needs to do is peek behind the curtain, at the state owned BBC, CBC, ABC, and TVNZ (all of which pump out anti-White, and pro immigrant programming) to see that they don’t “own” but control. I suspect it is no different in Sveriges Radio and Television.

You sound outraged, Franklin. But plenty of others do identify the enemy, and we all know who it is, even Andrew Joyce, plus you are talking to the choir here … so the outrage rings false.

I bring the same question to you I did in our last exchange, where you condemned the way the German National Socialists dealt with the Jews — that is: What do you suggest be done about the problem? You insist they be treated in a way that fits your moral framework, and not be harmed, plus be compensated financially, etc. How is that going to work? Please give some specifics. After identifying Jews as our enemy (which has been done), what can be done about it? What would happen then?

I note that you only post at White Nationalist sites and you argue against the “Nazis.”

What the Nazis could have done with the Jews is the same as a sound government should do with all its citizens : punish the criminals (for Jews that meant mostly “white collar” or financial crimes) and out-law cultural subversion (for Jews that meant no more promotion of degeneracy). Non-criminal and non-subversive Jews should have been left alone until a final destination for emigration could be found. Emigration to a Jewish state could then proceed in an orderly and humane fashion, spread out over a couple of years.

“I note that you only post at White Nationalist sites and you argue against the “Nazis.”

Because “Nazis” were (are) not White Nationalists but German Supremacists (especially with regard to Slavic peoples), which I reject. As for non-white races, they too should be treated humanely. Only their immigration into white countries should be stopped and where possible reversed (in a humane way).

Thank you, Dr. Joyce. At times a competent review of a book suffices. I applaud you for thoroughness and clarity in your review! My own “To Read” list long indeed, thanks in part to TOO and other noteworthy sites, I shall move on, striving to accomplish in my own writing as did Stephen Pax Leonard in his!

While Leonard is excellent at fleshing out the history and mechanics of pathological altruism among the Swedes, he admirably makes clear that this is a revolution (“bringing about the biggest ever demographic and cultural change the country has ever known”) imposed from above.

A well done article by Joyce.

Can’t help but be reminded here of the prescient 1973 book by Jean Raspail The Camp of the Saints which I’ve excerpted from and linked below.

You see, we wealthy nations condemned our Third World brothers. We set up our walls, walls of every description — political, moral, economic. We sentenced three-quarters of the
earth’s population, imprisoned them, put them away, not for life, but for lives. Yes, for countless lives on end. Now, all at once, this gigantic prison is rising up in peaceful revolt. Our captives have begun to escape. A million strong, they’re on their way, bearing no arms, no malice, and seeking just one thing, justice!

pg 30 – 31

At the very same moment thirty-two thousand seven hundred forty-two schoolteachers hit on the subject for the next day’s theme: “Describe
the life of the poor, suffering souls on board the ships, and express your feelings toward their plight in detail, by imagining, for example, that one of the desperate families comes to your home and asks you to take them in.”

Irresistible, really! And the dear little angel — all simple, childish soul and tender heart — will spread four pages’ worth of infantile pathos, enough to melt a concierge to tears, and his paper will be the best, the teacher will read it in class, and all his little friends will kick themselves for having been much too
stingy with their whines and whimpers. That’s how we mold our men nowadays. Because even the tough, hardhearted little brat, the one with all he needs to succeed in this life, is forced to take part, since children abhor standing out from the crowd. So he’ll have to play along too, and work himself into a
hypocritical sweat over the same philanthropic rubbish. And he’ll probably write just as brilliant a theme, clever child that he is, and he may even wind up believing what he writes, because youngsters like this are never really bad, just different, that’s all, just untapped potential. Then he’ll go home, like his
classmate, both of them proud of their fine compositions. And father, who knows what life is all about, will read the A-plus masterpiece, terrified (if he has the slightest imagination) at the notion of that foreign family of eight
coming to live in his three rooms and kitchen, but he’ll sit back and keep his big mouth shut. Mustn’t frustrate the little angels, mustn’t shock them, mustn’t sully their innocent thoughts and risk turning them later into hopeless prigs. No, he’ll wallow, ensnared, in his gutless affection, and chuck his little angel on a cheek flushed with pleasure, telling himself that he’s really a dear, and besides,
“out of the mouths of babes,” isn’t that what they say? . . . The mother will snivel in her handkerchief, eye moist with maternal affection rewarded. But let the famished Ganges horde show up some morning at their door — assuming, of course, that such a thing could happen — and there’s one damn family that’s bloody well had it! Perhaps instead of an open-armed welcome, despite the prophetic prose of the little remote-controlled angel, they’ll take to their heels. The Western heart, down deep, is all sham. In any event, they’ll have lost the strength and the will to say no! Now, multiply that by a million mindless themes, applauded by a million milksop fathers, and you get some idea of the climate of total decay. Could that be one explanation?

…At the very same instant, some seven thousand two hundred and twelve lycee professors decided to begin their next day’s classes with a discussion of racism. It didn’t make the slightest difference what they taught: math, English, chemistry, geography, even Latin. After all, whatever his field, isn’t the professor’s role to develop his students’ minds and force them to think? And so, they would have them speak their piece. The subject was there, ideal, made to order, too good to pass up: the fleet and its mission to cleanse and redeem the capitalist West!

A fine topic, politically charged, with something for everyone, a limitless script in that ongoing cinema of the masses, spontaneous and unrehearsed, whose feeble and trite ideas, hashed over again and again, swallowed up any sense of reality, any notion of personal obligation. Here too, we need keep in mind only the negative side of these vapid and fuzzy debates. Let the Ganges invader finally set foot on the Cote d’Azur, and except for the warped, misguided few whom we’ll see
dashing south, like pyromaniacs to a fire, the brawling little robot brats will be more than content to pull down their pants, like daddy, howling, according to their imbecilic logic, that they’ve needed a kick in the ass for a good long time, and they really deserve what they get! The beast’s obedient servants were
counting on just such delightful results. … Well, there’s no need to go through and count up the millions and millions of Durfort’s faithful listeners. The whole of France gulped down the narcotic: when the time would come to cut off her legs, she was sure to be ready for the operation.

“True enough,” Durfort’s voice rang out over the air, sharp and clear, and so sure of itself, “the exile we’re witnessing now is self-imposed. True too, the miscarriage of justice stems from no courtroom verdict. But the first is the offspring of poverty and neglect. And I’m sorry to have to tell you, my friends,
that we all share the blame for the second. You see, we wealthy nations condemned our Third World brothers. We set up our walls, walls of every description — political, moral, economic. We sentenced three-quarters of the
earth’s population, imprisoned them, put them away, not for life, but for lives. Yes, for countless lives on end. Now, all at once, this gigantic prison is rising up in peaceful revolt. Our captives have begun to escape. A million strong, they’re on their way, bearing no arms, no malice, and seeking just one thing, justice! So long as this planet of ours, this speck of a planet, shrunken to nothing by a hundred years of incredible progress, still bears two kinds of men, a scant five hours apart by plane, one whose average yearly income is no more than fifty dollars, and the other, some fifteen or twenty thousand — so long as that’s the case, my friends, nothing will convince me, with all due respect, that one isn’t an exploiter, and the other, his victim…”

” A million strong, they’re on their way, bearing no arms, no malice, and seeking just one thing, justice!”
Unfortunately, that is not the case. They want us enslaved or dead. If it were justice they were after, all of them would be flocking to Israel.

I don’t blame Muslims more than other groups for using terrorism to strike back at their persecutors. Terrorism has been used by the Irish, the Israelis, Russians, French, Spanish, Germans, and just about every other group at one time or another. But I don’t understand the motives of the people who are bringing in Muslims and seemingly transforming Europe. Political correctness seems to have momentum that carries the train over the cliff. In China Mao ended up herding the Red Guards into camps and shooting large numbers of them. I recall at the height of the anti-Vietnam movement in 1968 there was an ethic among students especially of only criticizing from the left and trying to be the most extreme faction in the room. This ethic is now found among middle-aged educators, psychologists, professors, lawyers, and bureaucrats. If there is such a subject as psychology, which I doubt, it would be helpful if some psychologists bent themselves to the task of figuring out how to break the psychology of political correctness. Maybe the best chance is to bring things to a head before too many old-school types have died off.

Terrorism started with the Assassins, a fanatical Muslim sect. Fanaticism has always been their hallmark. Ćele Kula, in Niš Serbia, contructed in 1809, was built for one reason: to terrify the local population. Muslims have been practicing terrorism for centuries.
The modern version of terrorism started with the Zionists convincing Churchill to bomb German civilians, which had been forbidden for centuries. The”underground” movements of WWII, in many cases, were terrorists, as they were non-uniformed combatants fighting against their own governments, such as in France. The Zionists, in Palestine, have continued the attacks on civilians.
While the IRA did explode car bombs, they always announced the target with enough time to clear civilians from the area, but not when the target was military. Splitting hairs, perhaps, but 900 years of Norman genocide was enough.

Jewish terrorism is far older than the terrorism of the Muslim Assassins. In the first century AD there existed a Jewish terrorist movement called sicarii (“dagger-men”) that fought against the Roman occupation of Palestine. For more information, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii

Curmudgeon wrote: “… the IRA … always announced the target with enough time to clear civilians from the area …”

Curmudgeon is very mistaken. The IRA savages sometimes targeted individual children in England. I’m not going to make myself sick looking up a reference. At the time one victim I read about was a ten year old girl, maimed for life. Thatcher, I think, pardoned the scum that did it.

Maybe it is NOT a case of the same type of person now thinking in a different way compared with a few decades ago. Maybe it is a different kind of person now in these jobs. ie a different subset of the population. One that is wired differently. Like a Guide Dog for the Blind organisation choosing labradors for their dogs for several years, then changing policy and choosing pitbulls to be the guide dogs. Both dogs drawn from the same population but completely different in behaviour. Maybe our wealth and democracy broke up the previous way of determining which type got the jobs/power/influence. Maybe in modern times the change in factors that resulted from our wealth is what inevitably led to the left taking over, by a natural process, as they tend to gravitate towards certain roles that they feel called to. Just as the stones in the road sort themselves out by a natural process so they end up clustered round crossing-islands in the middle of the road.

If the left take over a department in academia they always try and block out those with other opinions. They do not want the other side to have a voice.

If the right or apolitical initially dominate, they do the ‘fair’ thing and try and get balanced views and let lefties have some of the jobs. This is why they lose, by playing fair. Meanwhile the left are obsessive and deeply committed to their politics – even putting it above self-interest, ie they want the third world to come over even knowing their own lives will be worse for it.

So modern wealthy western democracies have allowed the left to act on their inner urges and gravitate to certain professions, which was not possible in past times when there was not as much public money to be spent.

@The Antiloser. It’s very simple, as I have stated here and elsewhere. (((Zog))) manipulates the Gentiles-as he has done for millennia) to allow wholesale invasion and takeover of Europe, Amurka, and Canada. In return, Israel gets promised from the Sunni autocrats to be left alone, and to establish bi-lateral relations. This is already going on with Israel and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. This is a quid pro quo, and you, Goyim Smush Gush are the giveaway price, the trading currency. I would not be surprised if Jews are already getting places as the The New Westrabia business and financial principles for all the new lands and resources the Muslims will have conquered without a shot being fired.

Muddlers ask continuously, “Why are the Jews pushing so hard for their enemies to take over the West”? Again very simple. The Jews did quite well under the Ottoman Caliphate and other Muslim countries and dominions. Jews will morph and shape shift into what fits the new owners of the West, and be the financial and business elite, as well as medical, administrative, etc.

That is almost certainly the political reality. An alliance of Semites to crush and destroy the Aryan. Zionism from its early days cut a deal with significant members of the Arab world. The unwritten agreement; deliver Europe to Islam and you can have ‘greater israel’.
I also suspect the self-chosenites have another plan to align Russia and China into a re-formed Mongol Empire. If they achieve that, we really will be stuck between a rock and a hard place!

Suppose the West Bank becomes 100% Israel and takes in a major portion of the Jewish Diaspora. What becomes of the Palestinians and how would the million-fold Muslim Street respond? What would an Islamicised Europe think of the Greater Israel and its enemy-faith Judaism? Most modern Jews are only distantly related to Arabs – notwithstanding the ancient linguistic family connections. How would international Jewry control an albeit unlikely Sino-Russian major power? Haven’t the neo-con “significant members” in the USA been opposed to Russia, Socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the spread of Islamism across the western world?

You make valid points, and from the accepted historical narratives there is little to contradict the observations you make. However, I and a few others are stepping outside the narrower viewpoint and are attempting to make sense of the broad brush strokes of history. Others, better read, may have solid supporting evidence but for the present I can offer only ‘intuitive’ guesses, after all, very few of us have access to documents relating to high level meetings and secret agreements. So, for the time being I will stick by my “improbable fantasy”.
At the time, 1950s, who would have thought the ‘fantasy’ revelations contained in Leon de Poncin’s “State Secrets” would be validated by corroboratory evidence?

Leon de Poncins’ “State Secrets” was an important book, far superior in accuracy and quotation to some others published in English translation. The reference to US entry into WW2 and the Morgenthau plan were known but by too few. On the latter, see now also e.g. John Dietrich’s study (2013).

The current “insider” trends from, John Bolton’s appointment to the growing Atlanticist/Neo-Con/Zionist campaigns against Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei, Recep Erdogan, and the Islamic invasion of Europe, indicate a different trajectory.

There is that Jewish tradition to be the “light” unto all the nations, and I can’t see how Israel or Jews would ever benefit from the disappearance of Europids and a world divided between Mongols, Muslims and “Schwarzers”.

@David Ashton. I’m not even sure that I can induce what your larger point and thrust of syllogisms signify, i.e., “what if’s”. Vague questions pose a vexing multiplex of answers.

What I had written is based on induction. That is, proceeding from a specified grouping of observations, perceiving and imputing a similar pattern, causality, or correlation or other consistent relationship, I proposed a hypothesis, which seeks to explain the above loci of coherent points.

From that point, once a hypothesis is established and a confidence level reached, the method is one of deduction, that is, finding observations, occurrences, significant nodes in the Space-Time Continuum that support the Explanation.

This was, in fact and acknowledged by Darwin, that his Theory of Evolution, Natural Selection, etc., was formed by pure induction. He observed the World and its occurrences and formulated a hypothesis, which became a developed theory.

Parenthetically, his theory and its contents did not fully account for the rise of more complicated and higher functioning organism, but is believed generally to adequately explain many changes within species.

@PaleoAtlantid. Well, I believe that many people do want to see this as the Prime Mover and the Force Majeure of the transplantation of populations and phenotypes and replacement. Of course some Jews “have to be sacrificed” for the Big Picture endeavors of the Zuckerbergs, Soros, Google Boys, Gold In Sachs, Rot-childs, Schiffs, etc, etc.

But remember and recall history regarding Jews. They are tenacious like a barnacle on a piling, hoeing to the same goal and end for generations and centuries, inculcating Christians and Goyim that to oppose them will mean continuous attempts at disruptions, attempt at destitution, and dissolution. That puts fear and dread in the hearts of those that stand in their way, a clandestine force of Amoral and Immoral limitless tools and machinations. That’s why they win-ultimately in every endeavor and undertaking. The mayor of Austin, Texas is a New York Commie Jew. Michael Dell, the computer billionaire, effectively controls the University of Texas home campus. Democrats control all Texas cities. Behind every nincompoop mayor is a string puller Jew and cadres. It’s very similar to the Marxist Governments of South America. The Cubans set up and RUN the State Security Apparatuses. THIS is Cubas leading export and foreign money maker.

South Florida is a wholly controlled and managed province of Israel Firsters and Jewish triumphalists. The outright chutzpah and gloating is revolting and tasteless. Nauseating.

This explanation fits what we see: some short-term risk for long-term immense gains. And support of Chinese dominance seems to be part of this; see Goldman’s last few years of Chinese-Jewish consonance. If we fail to resist now, it will soon be too late.

Trenchant, their, ie infallible Mossad, real whopper was Richard Gutjahr in Nice: the omnipresent German reporter with his “ex”-Israeli Intelligence wife who remained in Munich during his Riviera-holiday; probably preparing their next famous balcony-filmed episode of that Munich Mall shooting.

Who proposes this shit to these people ?
Litvinenko and Salisbury: same shit !

I search in vain to describe this sophomoric, intelligence-insulting crap more elegantly. It is what it is !

@Trenchant. This is of paramount importance to the self-image and self-appraisal of Jews, in the vast majority. They must demonstrate superiority in all things, endeavors, and enterprises. If they are not in fact superior, rather than lift themselves higher, they resort to lowering the comparative people(s), at any cost, with little or no limits. Just having more money is not enough. Power and domination are the dual handmaidens of the Jews’ obsession and compulsion behaviors.

It is necessary to note, that while Jews in power and in general fully support massive immigration of Africans & Muslims into Western nations, Israel has already deported 10,000 Africans back to Africa.
Last December a plan to deport more than 40,000 more Africans out of Israel passed the Knesset. This month Netanyahu told the Africans they must leave or face indefinite detention.
On a similar note, Israel hosted an all-expenses paid trip to Tel Aviv for the adolescents from the Stoneman High School, to speak at a rally designed to gather support in revoking the Second Amendment of our United States Constitution, the inalienable right for a citizen’s right to self-protection and to bear arms.

This whilst the Israelis whom are squatting, correction, “settling” on lands that legally belong to Palestinians, are granted the right to open carry rifles. Indeed, the Israeli government has called for an expansion in the system that would allow more squatters, er…settlers, particularly those who spent their military service in combat units, greater access to guns and rifles.

But we can learn one thing from the Israeli Jews. It is never too late to send the invaders & undesirables packing. If we could stop fighting the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel, and allow the Muslims to live in peace, I’m sure the great majority would love to return home. How much is Israel offering the Africans to return home? appx. 3200 dollars each. It is supposed to be a small fortune in Uganda. Israel has every right to deport illegal aliens from their borders and so do we. Israeli citizens have every right to own a gun to protect their family and their property, and so do we.
Sooner or later, their upping the ante will collectively ring a bell amongst the masses. It appears as if in their madness they want to be caught, for they are increasingly arrogant in their hubris.
It reminds me of the criminal toying with the authorities while still displaying impunity, stop me, before I kill again.

We also know that in that continuing to apologize and make up fairytales for the jews has gotten us absolutely nowhere. They have done VERY well in AmeriKwa and Europe and it’s time to settle the score. They’ve been SCREWING mankind for centuries and it’s time to answer the jewish question with a NO MORE!

01 President Kagame of Rwanda engineered the Genocide of ca 800,000 people of his nation: as finally adjudged by international judicial authorities and expatriates.

02 Exactly a year ago he was introduced as a speaker at the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington.

03 Frank Sesno introduced him. FS himself is primus inter pares among the Jewish journalists in the US and a university lecturer and head of its Media School. He was VP of CNN, etc.

04 Netanyahu and those to his ample right are imminently deporting, or alternatively incarcerating ca. 40,000 of these Israeli politically-incorrect, so-called ” INFILTRATORS ” : as you stated. [ At the departure airport, they are purportedly given the $ 3,200 ].

06 Israel claims, that Rwanda had agreed to admit these deportees, numbering many north-Africans among them.

07 Subsequently, Kagame, unwilling and unable to support or absorb them in his already adequately tribe-riddled society, in turn dumps them on his own neighbors through inadequately secured, effectively open borders.

08 From there, they are profitably sluiced to embarkation-points in North-Africa, only to pop up again in welcoming Western Europe, being allotted public-housing apartments originally built and ear-marked for impecunious, previously tax-paying pensioners.

09 Not even Israel’s global PR juggernaut could have dumped these people on Europe DIRECTLY: as it is through its wars.

10 For this reason alone, for facilitating this jungle-canopy- cover-camouflage for the redirecting bus-station, functionally speaking, Kagame, this ” Schwartzer “, as they internally refer to them derogatively, was so obsequiously welcomed by Sesno, ” bearing gifts “, at AIPAC 2017.

What’s a little racial-tribal Genocide of approximately comparative magnitude, between new friends, when the newest perpetrator of one CAN BE OF SERVICE to the now similarly motivated survivors of the trademarked one ?

It’s good to see that more Whites are speaking out, yet it’s going to take a lot, lot more of us doing so. To break the spell, there is absolutely no way around the J.Q.

The barely mentioned invisible hand that is orchestrating this subversion, i.e. the Bonniers, Barbara Spectre (((et al))) are clearly the root cause of the cultural Marxist disaster befalling Western Civilization. That, and very importantly, White gullibility.

Unfortunately, this kosher cabal has the White western population deeply intellectually poisoned & intimidated, and keeps relentlessly saturating us with more ideological toxin. Gawd, how much more of this nasty Kool Aid can the ‘Goyim’ stand?

The upshot of all this is: Jewry is playing for keeps, and why erstwhile sentient Whites keep play acting and genuflecting about their imminent demise, is truly the riddle of all time.

“Perhaps the best feature of the volume is that … it retains a thread of optimism throughout.”

Really?? The best feature of the book is … its “thread of optimism” ?? What the hell is there to be optimistic about??

“Leonard suggests that we can claw our way out of the abyss, and back into the light. Doing so will require courage and sacrifice …”

Again….really??

There will be blood … and lots of it … or there will be no way out of the abyss. Sadly, it seems we are all like the white South African remnant now … betrayed years ago and now patiently waiting … waiting … for the mass slaughter to begin … yet all the while somehow maintaining a false optimism amidst our internal, unending disputations about our inevitable fate and, woe is me, what to do … oh, what to do ….

There will be blood … and lots of it … or there will be no way out of the abyss.

The US South with its Red Shirts managed to fight its way out of the abyss pushing back what was intended for them (depending on the state) after the Civil War by about 60 – 80 years. The US – UK bloc, applying a great many lessons learned from dealing with the US South’s Anglo – Saxons against the Germans, held the Germans down to 12 years of being ‘out of order’ between 1933 – 1945 before getting them ‘back in line’.

Neither the Southerners nor the Germans were perfect in this, no one is, but I hold those powerful elements of the elites of the Anglo – Saxon and Jewish peoples and their hangers on involved in these things with the greater responsibility for the associated violence that took place. Had the US stayed out of WWI, there may well not have been a WWII. Had the US allowed for self determination for both its European and newly freed African populations, each having quite legitimate reasons to separate from each other, much of the post US Civil War inter-racial violence probably would not have taken place.

However, if you ‘freed’ the Black chattel slaves only as part of a larger global movement led by the British Empire which was designed for the purpose of exploiting them as wage slaves, ie ‘cheap laborers’ so called, you could hardly let the Black population go their own way. If you had long held dreams of obtaining total world power in conjunction with the UK which since the mid 19th century had specifically targeted Germany for conquest as the identified center of power upon continental Europe, then you could hardly stay out of the two world wars either.

Regarding the latter, see The New Rome by Theodore Poesche and Charles Goepp published in 1853, and A Political Prophecy published in 1912, and linked below.

…many Swedish notables were found “crying in public, they looked as pathetic as the Germans who applauded the ‘refugees’ who arrived in streams only to discover subsequently some of them were illegal immigrants and gangs of radical mobs looking to rape and pillage.” The result of this pathological response to the trigger propaganda of the mass media has been that migrants from Syria and Iraq now make up half the population of some Swedish towns.

Every people apparently has what might be termed a ‘group mind’ that’s been targeted with carefully crafted conditioning propaganda designed just for them. And what of those ‘rare exceptions’ that don’t readily succumb to this propaganda and ‘drink the kool aid’? Raspail in his ‘The Camp of the Saints’ thought the future multi-cult state(s) he described would feel so secure in their control over these peoples that they would simply disregard what limited atomized resistance there might be.

The brainwashing will last for a hundred years. A thousand. The powers that be put up with these rare exceptions, and treat them rather like harmless tramps. No danger. They have no convictions. The worst they do is to stand, in some minds, for a kind of vaguely conceived resistance.

pg 102

To this day, in the dull, drab egalitarian mass, impoverished and mindless, one still sees occasional flotsam of the sort, relics of the past, oblivious to the new order, and untouched by it. Like political prisons after any revolution, their ranks number many of the former leading lights. Businessmen, generals, prefects, writers. And a smattering, too, of the everyday people that the privileged classes aristocrats, first, and bourgeois, in time have always dragged along to disaster on their coattails, in part to flatter their own need for retainers, and in part because a few poor wretches will forever yearn to stand out and be different. But the new order needs no political prisons. The brainwashing will last for a hundred years. A thousand. The powers that be put up with these rare exceptions, and treat them rather like harmless tramps. No danger. They have no convictions. The worst they do is to stand, in some minds, for a kind of vaguely conceived resistance. They don’t reproduce, they don’t band together. As soon as they find themselves more than four or five, gathered outside on the steps of a church, or under the plane trees of some village square, they steal away, without a word, as if by some tacit agreement, avoiding the slightest temptation to indulge in communal existence. Since all of them are filthy and more miserable than the rest, and since all of them are white, they serve to make the great mulatto mix — the universal mongrelization — seem all the more desirable, not to mention the spirit of sacred solidarity that they steadfastly ignore. One look at them, and everyone can judge for himself. . .

Pierre de Craon was not one of those who formally announced their departure due to our collective unworthiness.

Where and particularly how is he dear Moderator ? You must have a back-door connection with him, since he is listed in the Archives of Authors.
——
(Mod. Note: I was wondering where Pierre was too, and hope all is well with him. No, we don’t have a “back-door connection”. This mod. only has a connection with the site owner.)

(Mod. Note: Trenchant, thanks so much for this news. All of us miss the “irascible” P.d.C., who has added so many levels of humor and interest to TOO comments. I trust we all wish him nothing but the best and that we’ll be hearing from him again, sooner rather than later. Apologies if publishing this transgresses your phrase “in confidence”, but I see nothing wrong with letting his friends know this news. Also, I don’t have any private correspondence with any of TOO’s commenters, including Mr. Frey. It’s all out in the open, for better or worse.)

How many more articles like this are required? The British PM who introduced gay marriage is a heterosexual having spent seven years at Eton and three at Oxford. If a quarter of million bucks worth of education can produce a “conservative” like David Cameron from where will resistance now emerge? Interminable analysis is not working. E Michael Jones’ latest video drew our attention to a recent statement by “conservative” Archbishop Chaput on these very issues as in the decline of the West. Chaput (who is ethnically first nation!) could not bring himself to name the source of the problem. Instead, he was forced to blame “aggressive secularists” for the chaos.

@Sursum corda. No. There will be no such return. Ashes cannot be restored to good wood, vinegar to wine. The damage done by and/or in the name of the Catholic Church is beyond repair. They have eaten and destroyed their own for too long and are as far from from the Original Church as can be imagined. Move up to Orthodoxy, son, if Christianity is your vehicle. Or move further up to Buddhism.

If you are sick, and there are ticks attached to your body, the first step is to remove the ticks.

Strabo, writing c. 35 B.C., … stated that the oecumene, i.e., the world inhabited by civilized or semi-civilized peoples, was “full of Jews,” who had “penetrated every city” and become so ubiquitous that, he said, “it is not easy to find any place in the oecumene into which their race has not made its way or in which it has not gained mastery [over the natives].” — Revilo P. Oliver

Great review. I’m buying it. I wonder will it be available at Foyles, whose number one non fiction book of the year was Why I’m No Longer Talking About Racism To White People. -Which they’ve been promoting more than any book That I can remember. Though they did not file it under Comedy/humour for some reason.

Misguided “altruism” may explain how some White people are manipulated into going along with the race-replacement agenda of the Jews (in the name of “anti-racism”), but it doesn’t explain why they would go along with the Jews on things like the EU, gay marriage, modern art, climate change, Shostakovich –and also, the whole word method to teach reading.

We tend to call leftist everything that is more or less crazy, like veganism, or the idea of totally abolishing private ownership. But why would those who speak well of Shostakovich also believe in the whole word method (which doesn’t work) and in Jewish theories about climate change? Why would any of that appeal to an altruist with a left-wing personality? Those things are unrelated, apart from being pushed by the same group of people at the top.

The so-called leftists who accept that agenda are not soft-hearted leftists, but authoritarian lemmings. They will support anything that comes from the powers that be and try to make us accept it too.

Anyway, the loony left is a minority. Some of them have been selected to become judges or journalists, but most of them are not in power. Most people in Sweden, France, the USA, are still against race replacement. The journalists, civil servants and elected officials, are the ones enforcing the government’s anti-White policies. They behave as obedient little soldiers. And what prevents a popular revolt is the censorship and intimidation tactics.

“No Jihad Here,” an account of the great pains to which Western media and political elites have gone to deny the fact jihad is being waged against us by Muslim populations.”

Our main problem is race replacement. Muslim terrorism is an additional problem. But the Jewish subversion of our minds, of our ideals, and of the intellectual life in Western countries, is something much worse than Muslim terrorism. It affects relations between White people. It encourages the masochistic culture and makes everyone less happy. That is what makes the race replacement possible in the first place.

Robert Putnam wrote a whole book about the idea that immigrants tend to destroy social trust between Whites. Actually, the real problem with non-whites is that they are replacing us. But concerning social trust among Whites, the Jews are the main ones wrecking that, in all sorts of ways. You can move away from the non-White invaders, but you cannot escape the Jewish influence coming down from the government and the media and transforming society as a whole.

“80% of rapes are committed by North Africans and migrants from the Middle East”

We’re told that Sweden has become the country of rapes, but I guess the Arab percentage of the population is still higher in France than in Sweden. Does it mean that rapes are under-reported in France? Or that rapes are encouraged by the Swedish system? Maybe both.